Benjamin K. Sanchez v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-OPT4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-OPT4, Homeward Residential, Inc. F/K/A American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., and Real Time Resolutions, Inc.

Case Information

FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/31/2015 10:56:02 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk ACCEPTED 14-13-00272-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/31/2015 10:56:02 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK Case%No.%14+13+00272+CV% %

BENJAMIN%K.%SANCHEZ% %

% %

v.% %

% IN%THE%FOURTEENTH%

DEUTSCHE%BANK%NATIONAL% %

TRUST%COMPANY,%AS%TRUSTEE% COURT%OF%APPEALS%OF%

FOR%SOUNDVIEW%HOME%LOAN% %

TRUST%2006+OPT4,%ASSET+BACKED% THE%STATE%OF%TEXAS%

CERTIFICATES,%SERIES%2006+OPT4,% !

AMERICAN%HOME%MORTGAGE%

SERVICING,%INC.,%and%REAL%TIME%

RESOLUTIONS,%INC.%

% Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing of Motion for En Banc Reconsideration %

% 1.% % Appellant%BENJAMIN%K.%SANCHEZ%submits%this%motion%for%

rehearing%in%response%to%the%Court’s%denial%of% Appellant’s*Motion*for*En*Banc*

Reconsideration* on%July%16%2015.%This%Motion%is%submitted%within%15%days%of%

the%Court’s%denial%on%en%banc%reconsideration.%

2.% % The%Court%has%the%authority%to%grant%this%motion%and%submit%the% case%to%the%full%court,%sitting%en%banc.%Tex.%R.%App.%P.%49.5,%49.7;% see* Tex.%R.%

App.%P.%41.2.%

3.% % The%primary%issues%on%appeal%are%set%forth%below,%which%the%Court% resolved%by%holding%against%Appellant%on%each%issue.%

4.% % ISSUE%1:%% The%Court%erred%in%finding%that%Appellant%never% responded%to%Appellees’%no+evidence%motions%for%summary%judgment%and%

thus%did%not%raise%a%genuine%issue%of%material%fact.%

5.% % ISSUE%2:%% The%Court%erred%in%finding%that%Real%Time%Resolutions’% no+evidence%motion%for%summary%judgment%was%timely%set%in%compliance%

with%the%trial%court’s%docket%control%order.%

6.% % ISSUE%3:%% The%Court%erred%in%allowing%evidence%of%a%name% change%of%American%Home%Mortgage%herein%when%such%is%not%part%of%the%

record%from%the%trial%court.%

7.% % The%issues%in%this%case%present%such%an%extraordinary%circumstance% that%resolution%of%the%issues%by%the%Court%en%banc%is%necessary.% See* Tex.%R.%

App.%P.%41.2(c),%49.7.%

II. Argument & Authorities A. Issue 1: The Court erred in finding that

Appellant never responded to Appellees’ noA evidence motions for summary judgment and thus did not raise a genuine issue of material fact.

8.% % Appellant%respectfully%requests%the%Court%to%reconsider%its%finding% that%Appellant%never%responded%to%Appellees’%no+evidence%motions%for%

summary%judgment%and%thus%did%not%raise%a%genuine%issue%of%material%fact.%

9.% % Motions%and%responses%filed%in%a%trial%court%are%determined%and% evaluated%on%their%substance,%not%their%title.% See %Tex.%R.%Civ.%P.%71;% e.g.,*State*

Bar*v.*Heard ,%603%S.W.2d%829,%833%(Tex.%1980),% Speer*v.*Stover ,%685%S.W.2d%22,%

23%(Tex.%1985),% In*re*Bokeloh ,%21%S.W.3d%784,%789+90%(Tex.App.—Houston%

[14 th %Dist.]%2000,%orig.%proceeding).%A%court%must%“look%to%the%substance%of%a%

plea%for%relief%to%determine%the%nature%of%the%pleading,%not%merely%at%the%

form%of%title%given%to%it.”% State*Bar ,%603%S.W.2d%at%833.%This%Court%has%

routinely%disregarded%misnomers%and%lackluster%pleading%titles%to%evaluate%

the%substance%of%pleadings%and%motions.% See*Riner*v.*City*of*Hunters*Creek ,%

403%S.W.3d%919,%921+22%(Tex.App.—Houston%[14 th %Dist.]%2013,%no%pet.).%

10.%% Although%the%Court%acknowledged%that%Appellant%asserted%that% his%objection%to%submission%of%the%motions%for%summary%judgment,%motion%

for%continuance%of%the%summary%judgment%hearings,%and%motion%to%strike% deemed%admissions%should%have%been%treated%as%responses%to%Appellees’%

motions%for%summary%judgment,%the%Court%did%not%find%anything%

responsive%to%the%summary%judgment%motions.%The%Court%pointed%to%

Appellant’s%alleged%incorporation%of%the%original%petition%and%attachments%

thereto%in%his%brief%and%asserted%that%an%inclusion%of%pleadings%is%not%

evidence.%While%the%Court%is%correct%in%that%a%petition%in%and%of%itself%is%not%

evidence,%the%evidence%attached%to%a%petition%is%still%evidence%and%can%be%

incorporated%into%a%later%motion.%Such%is%routinely%done%when%a%plaintiff%

files%a%suit%on%a%sworn%account%or%breach%of%contract%and%attaches%an%

affidavit%and%business%records%to%the%petition,%which%said%affidavit%and%

business%records%are%then%referred%to%in%a%later%motion.%To%be%clear,%

however,%Appellant%did%not%argue%evidence%outside%of%the%record%herein%

and%certainly%wasn’t%trying%to%introduce%evidence%per%se%into%this%appeal,%

but%rather%was%merely%arguing%the%evidence%already%presented%in%the%

record.%So%the%Court’s%admonishment%that%Appellant%could%not%have%used%

the%petition%as%evidence%in%this%appeal%is%misplaced.%

11.%% The%Court%mistakenly%noted%that%Appellant%incorporated%his% petition%and%evidence%attached%thereto%into%the%documents%responsive%to%

Appellees’%motions%for%summary%judgment%(objection%to%submission,%

motion%for%continuance,%and%motion%to%strike),%but%in%his%original%brief%

herein,%Appellant%incorporated%the%facts%and%procedural%history%set%forth%in%

those%responsive%documents%into%his%brief%herein.%The%confusion%arises%due%

to%incorrect%cites%to%the%Clerk%Record%by%Appellant%in%his%brief.%Appellant%

mistakenly%cited%the%original%Clerk%Record%when%he%intended%to%cite%to%the%

Supplement%to%the%Clerk%Record.%As%the%Court%will%notice,%Appellant’s%

motion%for%continuance%is%found%in%pages%25+34%as%noted%in%his%brief%but%it%is%

to%the%Supplemental%Clerk%Record,%not%the%Original%Clerk%Record.%Likewise,%

Appellant’s%motion%to%strike%is%found%in%pages%35+54%as%noted%in%his%brief%

but%it%is%to%the%Supplemental%Clerk%Record,%not%the%Original%Clerk%Record.%

Appellant%apologizes%to%the%Court%for%such%confusion.%

12.%% %In%responding%to%Appellees’%summary%judgment%motions%through% the%responsive%documents%noted%herein,%Appellant%specifically%addressed%

several%of%the%substantive%issues%set%forth%in%his%brief%herein.%

13.%% Appellant%set%forth%in%the%motion%for%continuance%and%motion%to% strike%deemed%admissions%the%substance%of%Issue%4%in%his%brief%herein,%

namely%whether%or%not%Deutsche%Bank%proved%that%it%was%the%lawful%owner%

and%holder%of%the%note%upon%which%the%foreclosure%was%based.%In%

paragraphs%20%and%21%of%his%motion%for%continuance,%Appellant%specifically%

asserted%that%Deutsche%Bank%had%failed%to%prove%that%it%actually%owned%the%

note%and%thus%had%the%authority%to%foreclose%on%the%note.%(SCR%30+31)%

Appellant%specifically%asserted%that%Deutsche%Bank%had%failed%to%show%any%

proof%of%a%bill%of%sale%or%assignment%of%the%note.%(SCR%31)%In%paragraph%17%of%

his%motion%to%strike,%Appellant%asserted%that%Appellees%had%not%proven%that%

Deutsche%Bank%purchased%or%was%assigned%the%mortgages%from%Option%

One.%(SCR%40+41)%

14.%% Appellant%also%set%forth%in%the%motion%for%continuance%and%motion% to%strike%deemed%admissions%the%substance%of%Issue%3%in%his%brief%herein,%

namely%the%lack%of%proof%of%the%required%notice+to+cure%prior%to%the%notice%of%

foreclosure.%In%paragraph%21%of%his%motion%for%continuance,%Appellant%

asserted%that%there%was%no%proof%that%American%Home%Mortgage%served%a%

proper%20+day%notice%to%cure%prior%to%the%notice%of%acceleration%and% foreclosure.%(SCR%31)%In%paragraph%17%of%his%motion%to%strike,%Appellant%

asserted%that%Appellees%had%failed%to%prove%that%the%mandatory%20+day%

notice%to%cure%had%been%sent%before%accelerating%on%the%note%and%foreclosing.%

(SCR%40+41)%

15.%% Appellant%set%forth%in%the%motion%to%strike%the%substance%of%Issue%5% in%his%brief%herein,%namely%the%lack%of%proper%substitution%of%Homeward%

Residential%for%American%Home%Mortgage%into%the%case.%In%paragraph%4%of%

the%motion%to%strike,%Appellant%asserted%that%such%unilateral%substitution%

was%illegal%because%no%evidence%had%ever%been%presented%to%the%trial%court%

of%the%change%in%company%name.%(SCR%36)%

16.%% Appellant%set%forth%the%substance%of%Issue%6%in%his%brief%regarding% the%procedural%defects%in%the%summary%judgment%proceedings%in%his%

objection%to%submission,%motion%for%continuance,%and%motion%to%strike%

deemed%admissions.%

17.%% Simply%because%Appellant%did%not%file%a%document%entitled%as%a% response%to%a%summary%judgment%motion%does%not%mean%that%Appellant%did%

not%indeed%respond.%It%is%clear%that%Appellant%timely%filed%three%separate% motions%in%response%to%the%summary%judgment%motions%and%therein%

included%issues%the%trial%court%should%consider%in%ruling%upon%the%merits%of%

the%summary%judgment%motions.%For%example,%if%Deutsche%Bank%never%

provided%proof%that%it%owned%the%note%or%was%properly%assigned%the%note,%

then%how%could%Deutsche%Bank%ever%prove%that%it%properly%foreclosed%on%

the%note?%In%fact,%would%that%not%be%a%fact%issue%for%the%fact+finder%to%

determine,%because%a%genuine%issue%of%material%fact%existed%as%to%whether%or%

not%Deutsche%Bank%had%the%authority%to%foreclose?%For%the%trial%court%to%

ignore%that%most%basic%question,%one%so%fundamental%to%the%wrongful%

foreclosure%claim%of%Appellant,%was%clear%error.%It%would%have%been%

different%if%Appellees%had%in%fact%produced%such%evidence.%Such%an%issue%

could%not%be%disproven%by%Appellant%in%response%to%a%no+evidence%motion%

for%summary%judgment.%The%burden%should%never%be%on%the%homeowner%to%

prove%that%it%has%a%scintilla%of%evidence%that%an%alleged%noteholder%actually%

holds%the%note.%Appellant%could%never%provide%such%a%scintilla%of%evidence%

in%this%case%because%Deutsche%Bank%never%provided%proof%that%it%was%the%

legal%noteholder.%For%Deutsche%Bank%then%to%file%a%no+evidence%motion%for% summary%judgment%and%argue%that%Appellant%loses%because%he%can’t%show%

that%part%of%his%claim%is%simply%incredulous.%Taking%someone’s%home%away%

is%so%harmful%that%anyone%who%dares%tries%to%take%it%away%should%be%made%

to%show%the%legal%authority%for%doing%so,%and%Deutsche%Bank%never%did%that.%

Appellant%questioned%Deutsche%Bank’s%authority%from%the%very%beginning,%

and%the%trial%court%erred%in%allowing%Deutsche%Bank%to%win%on%summary%

judgment%without%ever%having%shown%its%legal%authority%upon%which%it%

could%have%foreclosed%and%taken%Appellant’s%home%away%from%him.%

% 18.%% It%is%important%to%note%that%the%Court%dismissed%the%underlying% substance%of%Appellant’s%first%four%points%of%error%regarding%the%trial%court’s%

grant%of%summary%judgment%by%ruling%that%Appellant%failed%to%respond%to%

the%summary%judgment%motions.%Appellant%clearly%responded%to%the%

summary%judgment%motions%and%in%responding%to%the%summary%judgment%

motions%by%way%of%three%different%motions%raised%genuine%issues%of%material%

fact.%Given%what’s%at%stake%in%this%case,%Appellant’s%homestead,%the%Court%

should%reconsider%its%finding%that%there%was%no%response%by%Appellant%and%

address%the%substantive%issues%raised%by%Appellant,%because%it%is%clear%that% Appellant%is%correct%in%the%first%four%issues%raised%in%his%brief.%

B. Issue 2: The Court erred in finding that Real

Time Resolutions’ noAevidence motion for summary judgment was timely set in compliance with the trial court’s docket control order.

19.%% Appellant%respectfully%requests%the%Court%to%reconsider%its%finding% that%Real%Time%Resolutions%timely%set%its%no+evidence%motion%for%summary%

judgment.%

20.%% The%Court%held%that%the%trial%court’s%docket%control%order%provided% that%Rule%166a(i)%motions%could%not%be%heard%before%January%4,%2013.%That%

simply%is%a%mischaracterization%of%the%evidence%before%the%court.%The%trial%

court’s%docket%control%order%did%not%list%any%date%next%to%item%7(c)%in%the%

docket%control%order.%(CR%183)%Thus,%contrary%to%the%Court’s%reading%of%the%

trial%court’s%docket%control%order,%the%docket%control%order%did%not%provide%

that%Rule%166a(i)%motions%could%not%be%heard%before%January%7,%2013.%In%fact,%

the%docket%control%order%contemplates%that%some%items%may%not%have%dates%

attached%thereto,%as%noted%in%the%second%sentence%of%the%docket%control%

order.% 21.%% With%no%date%under%that%particular%line%item,%the%only%restriction% on%the%summary%judgment%motions%not%subject%to%interlocutory%appeal%

were%that%they%had%to%be%heard%by%January%4,%2013%as%set%forth%in%item%7(b)%of%

the%docket%control%order.%The%date%in%item%7(b)%wasn’t%automatically%and%

magically%carried%over%in%item%7(c).%

22.%% The%Court%acknowledges%that%Real%Time%Resolutions’%no+evidence% motion%for%summary%judgment%was%set%after%that%date,%and%the%Court%issued%

its%opinion%herein%based%on%the%no+evidence%motions%for%summary%

judgment,%so%it%was%clear%error%that%the%trial%court%considered%Real%Time%

Resolutions’%no+evidence%motion%for%summary%judgment%because%it%was%not%

timely%set%in%compliance%with%the%trial%court’s%own%docket%control%order.%

C. Issue 3: The Court erred in allowing evidence of

a name change by American Home Mortgage herein when such is not part of the record from the trial court.

23.%% Appellant%respectfully%requests%the%Court%to%reconsider%its%finding% that%Homeward%Residential%did%not%improperly%substituted%itself%into%the%

trial%court%suit%due%to%a%legal%name%change%because%such%evidence%is%not% part%of%the%Clerk%Record%and%was%only%included%as%new%evidence%in%this%

appeal,%to%which%Appellant%objects.%

24.%% It%is%clear%that%Homeward%Residential%introduces%new%evidence% into%this%appeal%which%cannot%be%considered%by%this%Court.%The%Clerk%

Record%does%not%contain%the%documents%found%in%Tabs%B%and%C%of%

Homeward%Residential’s%brief%herein.%Whether%or%not%those%documents%

would%have%been%properly%admitted%into%evidence%by%the%trial%court%was%a%

decision%for%the%trial%court.%For%example,%such%documents%presented%by%

Homeward%Residential%were%not%certified%documents%of%public%documents%

certified%by%the%alleged%governmental%entities%and%thus%would%not%have%

been%proper%evidence%in%the%trial%court.%It%is%unclear%as%to%how%the%Court%can%

now%take%evidence%that%wasn’t%included%in%the%Clerk%Record,%make%an%

admissibility%determination%herein,%and%then%base%a%finding%and%ruling%in%

this%appeal%thereon.%

25.%% It%is%clear%that%such%documents%were%never%provided%to%the%trial% court%in%any%pleading%or%any%summary%judgment%proceeding,%and%thus%

Appellant%was%certainly%correct%in%asserting%that%Homeward%Residential% incorrectly%substituted%itself%into%the%case%without%any%admissible%proof%of%

the%name%change.%The%fight%over%that%fact%of%the%name%change%and%the%

admissibility%of%alleged%evidence%to%support%that%name%change%should%have%

been%held%in%the%trial%court,%in%this%appeal,%and%Appellant%objects%to%any%

such%evidence%becoming%new%evidence%herein%and%asserts%that%it%was%error%

for%this%Court%to%allow%such%evidence%and%then%make%a%ruling%based%on%such%

evidence%outside%the%Clerk%Record%herein.%

26.%% How%could%the%appellate%process%truly%work%if%the%appellant% complains%about%the%lack%of%evidence%at%the%trial%court%and%then%an%appellee%

brings%forth%that%evidence%for%the%first%time%on%appeal?%That%is%

fundamentally%unfair%to%the%appellant%and%goes%against%the%function%of%this%

Court.%

III. Prayer

% 27.%% For%these%reasons,%Appellant%asks%the%Court%to%grant%this%motion%

for%rehearing%to%reconsider%the%case%en%banc.%

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Respectfully%submitted,%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % By:% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % BENJAMIN%K.%SANCHEZ%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Texas%Bar%No.%24006288%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % Sanchez%Law%Firm%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % Houston%Bar%Center%Building%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % 723%Main%Street,%Suite%515%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % Houston,%TX%77002+3315%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % T:% 713+780+7745%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % F:% 888+201+5941%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % E:% bsanchez@sanchezlawfirm.com%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % APPELLANT%PRO%SE%

! Unsworn Declaration of Benjamin K. Sanchez %

“My%name%is%Benjamin%K.%Sanchez.%My%date%of%birth%is%May%11,%1969,%and% my%business%address%is%723%Main%Street,%Suite%515,%Houston,%Texas%77002.%I%

declare%under%penalty%of%perjury%that%the%facts%stated%in%the%foregoing%

Appellant’s*Motion*for*Rehearing*of*Motion*for*En*Banc*Reconsideration %are%true%

and%correct.”%

Executed%in%Hawaii%County,%State%of%Hawaii,%on%July%31,%2015.% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % BENJAMIN%K.%SANCHEZ%

%

%

%

%

Certificate of Word Count %

I%hereby%certify%that%the%total%number%of%words%in%this%document,% including%all%signature%lines%and%certificates,%is%2,605.%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % Benjamin%K.%Sanchez%

% Certificate of Service %

I%hereby%certify%that%the%foregoing%document%was%served%on%Appellees% through%their%counsel%of%record,%pursuant%to%the%Texas%Rules%of%Appellate%

Procedure,%on%July%31,%2015,%as%follows:%

%

Via!E&Service!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Via!E&service %

Derrick%B.%Carson% % % % % % % Anthony%A.%Petrocchi%

LOCKE%LORD%LLP% % % % % % % WEIL%&%PETROCCHI,%PC%

600%Travis,%Suite%2800% % % % % % 1601%Elm,%Suite%1900%

Houston,%TX%77002% % % % % % % Dallas,%TX%75201%

Tel:% % 713+226+1200% % % % % % Tel:% % 214+969+7272%

Fax:% % 713+223+3717% % % % % % Fax:% % 214+880+7402%

E:% dcarson@lockelord.com% % % % E:% tpetrocchi@petrocchilaw.net%

%

Counsel%for%Appellees% % % % % % Counsel%for%Appellee%

DEUTSCHE%BANK%NATIONAL% % REAL%TIME%RESOLUTIONS,%INC.%

TRUST%COMPANY,%AS%TRUSTEE,%

and%HOMEWARD%RESIDENTIAL,%INC.%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % Benjamin%K.%Sanchez%

Case Details

Case Name: Benjamin K. Sanchez v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-OPT4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-OPT4, Homeward Residential, Inc. F/K/A American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., and Real Time Resolutions, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jul 31, 2015

Docket Number: 14-13-00272-CV

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.